[imbur]

Daily stormer, pol, and breitbart are all free to find another web host/CDN or start their own. There is no slippery slope with one business refusing to do business with another one. The business does not need to be accountable to anyone, because they have no requirement to host the daily stormer in the first place.

[jmnicolas]

So a baker could refuse to make a cake for homosexuals then ?

[jamespo]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group

HTH

[ckastner]

Then the argument should be "The business does not need to be accountable to anyone, except with regards to protected groups".

However, that was not the argument that was made. The original argument is unconditional: "to anyone", period.

The grandparent pointed out this flaw. You are on the same side of the argument.

[jamespo]

I don't care about the original argument, it wasn't made by me. Obviously the business has to respect the law.

Therefore comparing cloudflare and the bakery is dishonest, there you go.

[ckastner]

> I don't care about the original argument

Well, that explains why you still haven't realized that the comment you took offense with was actually concordant with your own position.

[drunkenmonkey]

I think a big problem is that impoliteness and a lack of good faith exists within these online discussions.

[DarkKomunalec]

What makes you think the discussion is limited to what the law is, versus what it should be, or more broadly, what the 'right' thing to do is, regardless of the law?

[jamespo]

Good luck getting agreement on the "right" thing to do

[genon]

Your link does not necessarily refute the post you're replying to. Gay people are not a protected group under Federal law; nor, AIUI, are they in most states.

[jamespo]

The "gay bakery" case I'm aware of was in Northern Ireland

[darpa_escapee]

What's with everyone bending over backwards to equate Nazis with non-genocidal, non-terrorist groups of people?

Given the chance, gay people will try to live their lives in peace.

Given the chance, Nazis will try to exterminate billions of people.

Nazis haven't been systematically persecuted and killed for millennia. Ironically, gay people have been systematically persecuted and murdered by Nazis. Such persecution is why there are protected classes, which some governments recognize gay people as belonging to.

[ckastner]

> What's with everyone bending over backwards to equivocate Nazis with non-genocidal, non-terrorist groups of people?

That's not what is happening, as I understood it. The grandparent simply refuted the general argument that "The business does not need to be accountable to anyone" by providing a counterexample whereby unconditionally following this argument can lead to an unwanted outcome.

In other words: it's not that simple.

[tchalla]

Actually, it is that simple. The grandparent made a false equivalence. Sexual orientation, color of skin, race etc. is not a choice that someone makes. Your political orientation is a choice you make. One of them is not the same as the other.

[ckastner]

The false equivalence is in the original argument ("accountable to anyone"), that's what the grandparent was attempting to point out.

[ygaf]

The equivalence the gp is making is between businesses, not clients. Businesses obviously are accountable to someone if they must serve gay people. It has already been pointed out that gays are a protected class, but deliberately(?) missing people's points has never helped a cause.

[jmnicolas]

Thank you for explaining it better than I could (I'm not an English native speaker ;-).

[tchalla]

False equivalence. Your sexual orientation is not a choice. Your political orientation is.

[megous]

So have you tried actually believing something politically completely different from what you believe right now?

Because it's not really a choice. You can pretend play to advocate for whatever political ideology. The same way you can have sex with women even if you're gay or vice versa. You can choose your sexual behavior.

But political orientation is not really a choice. It is perhaps a result of your choices, early influences, social group, etc.

[kikimaru]

My politicial mindset, today, is vastly different to my political mindset from 5 or 10 years ago.

It helps that I live in a country with more than 2 dominant political parties; it lets me think in shades of gray (rather than in black-and-white).

[irishsultan]

But did you consciously set out to have a different political mindset than the one you had at the time? Because that's the only thing that matters (in this comparison at least).

[megous]

Mine too, but it took years and a fairly complete change of people I interacted with and longterm exposure to various ideas and life experiences. It was not a decision/choice. This kind of change is a long process of learning new ways of thinking and abandoning the old ways.

[JohnStrange]

This is independent of anyone's political beliefs, there should be limits to radical jihadists, radical anti-democratic communists, radical anti-democratic fascists of all sort, etc. You can choose to pursue your political aims with non-violent means and practice tolerance.

The idea is that you can believe whatever you want, but as soon as you start to propagate violence and pose an active threat against democracy - like e.g. making detailed plans to overthrow the government, advertising that only certain people should be allowed to vote, etc - there should be reasonable limits.

[megous]

I agree. The point is that one's political orientation is not a simple choice no matter how radical. It may not be as fixed as sexual one, though, but still difficult to change.

It's kind of a water a person swims in. It's the way he thinks. It's too meta for most people to even think about it as something chooseable.

[vacri]

Swing voters, the folks who decide every election in a modern democracy, would disagree with you.

[paradoja]

I don't think I agree with the grandparent, but usually swing voters don't change their political views, but rather political parties adapt their programs (or rather, propaganda) to appeal to them. So I don't think that's a good example.

[mantas]

Does existence of bi-sexuals dimmish existence of gay or straight people?

[coldtea]

>Your sexual orientation is not a choice.

Who says it's so for everybody?

There are millions who insist that their sex orientation is their choice. They can try X, experiment with Z, and whatever. That was part of the idea of "fluid genders" and sexual liberation in the sixties and especially seventies.

[denzil_correa]

No, people insist that they are free to have ANY sexual orientation. This doesn't make your sexual orientation "a choice".

[coldtea]

Well, people have changed sexual orientation. Straight to gay, lesbian to bi, gay to transgender and vice versa.

If that's not "a choice" I don't know what is. Just because it's not often a choice doesn't mean it can't be.

[mattcoles]

In the same way that some days I am happy and other days I'm sad, doesn't mean that my mood is choice.

[damnfine]

It is'nt always, but it sure can be.

[rayiner]

Religion is a choice, but you can't refuse to bake a cake for Seventh Day Adventists.

[LinXitoW]

Your sexual orientation might not be a choice, but if and how you express it definitely is. "Oh, yes, Jews are subhuman. One bread please." is on the same level as "I love me some pussy, obviously, because i'm a man. One bread please".

[elcapitan]

How is forcing people to take up a different political view to buy bread better than forcing them to change their sexual preferences to buy bread? That whole protected group thing is completely nuts.

[tchalla]

I just explained how it is different. Political ideology is a choice; sexual orientation is not.

[elcapitan]

So you voluntarily choose to see the world completely differently, just so that you can buy bread? How is that a choice? It's force. And some people choose different sexual orientations in their life, so how is it not a choice?

In both cases the discrimination would just force me to pretend to be something other than I am.

[denzil_correa]

I don't think you still understand. Political choices can change, sexual orientation/race/color of skin doesn't.

[danieltillett]

Not that I am any way supporting DS, but political orientation is not very plastic.

[joering2]

That will be very sad place when business is forced to service someone even being against it for their personal believe, just because that something is not their choice but rather a set in stone fact.

My brother in law is mentally ill.m and his local diving center won't take him for a dive. I have to ask him to sue them for refusal of service based on his sicknes and because his sickness is not his choice.

[thehardsphere]

If the cake is denied because the baker doesn't want to create content they disagree with (as opposed to being denied merely because the requestor is homosexual), then why not?

[Ygg2]

Look. We only apply those rules for sides we like.

[_khau]

Homosexuals are the way they were born.

Nazis are not.

[danieltillett]

Actually nobody knows why homosexuals are homosexual nor why Nazis are Nazis. There is very little scientific evidence to support any cause for either outlook.

[ionised]

Are you implying homosexuality is a choice?

[danieltillett]

No I am saying we don't know why.

[sageikosa]

business is accountable via money to its owners and creditors. which ultimately means its accountable to the market.